People v. Tracy

Michigan Supreme Court

People v. Tracy

80 N.W. 21, 121 Mich. 318, 1899 Mich. LEXIS 573

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 19, 1899

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 80 N.W. 21 (People v. Tracy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Tracy, 80 N.W. 21, 121 Mich. 318, 1899 Mich. LEXIS 573 (Mich. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Grant, C. J.

(after stating the facts). It is contended that there is no evidence that the crime was committed in the night-time. While the locus of this crime was not in a city, as was the case in People v. Dupree, 98 Mich. 28, yet we think that case controls this. The owner testified that he did his chores early in the morning, but it was after daylight, and he then discovered that the property was gone. The property was bulky, and it is not probable that one would run the risk of breaking into a building situated as these were, in daylight, and of carrying away property of this character. The chance of detection would be too great. The question was for the jury.

While counsel for respondent argue other phases of the case, they close their brief by stating that there is, after all, but this one question in the case. We agree with them, and refrain from discussing the other points.

The conviction is affirmed, and, if sentence has not been imposed, the case will be remanded, with instructions to proceed to sentence.

Montgomery, Hooker, and Moore, JJ., concurred. Long, J., did not sit.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Grant, C. J.

(after stating the facts). It is contended that there is no evidence that the crime was committed in the night-time. While the locus of this crime was not in a city, as was the case in People v. Dupree, 98 Mich. 28, yet we think that case controls this. The owner testified that he did his chores early in the morning, but it was after daylight, and he then discovered that the property was gone. The property was bulky, and it is not probable that one would run the risk of breaking into a building situated as these were, in daylight, and of carrying away property of this character. The chance of detection would be too great. The question was for the jury.

While counsel for respondent argue other phases of the case, they close their brief by stating that there is, after all, but this one question in the case. We agree with them, and refrain from discussing the other points.

The conviction is affirmed, and, if sentence has not been imposed, the case will be remanded, with instructions to proceed to sentence.

Montgomery, Hooker, and Moore, JJ., concurred. Long, J., did not sit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 N.W. 21, 121 Mich. 318, 1899 Mich. LEXIS 573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tracy-mich-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack